we need to find out did people travel on the days they said they traveled, those type of things. if that's the case, there's a lot of detail in there that neez to be verified. > woodruff: but you went on to say that the precise detailsīehavior if people in the trump campaign were working with russian intelligence to collect information on americans. so when you read this, it smaks of the kind of thing we would believe is credible. they do psychological profiling of people to try to see who might be sources for them this is just the way the russians operate. we are followed all the time, restaurants and blaises, hotels, like this have exproo audio in them. when i lived there, we had audio and video in our houses. russia is a police state and has been a police state for much of its history, and this is the way they often do business. what it you mean by that? > it must look odd to anybody who has read this. you said there are parts of this are credible and you said it's the way the russians operate. > woodruff: john sipher, let's go back to what you said a minute ago. and just because a single fact in the document is false, that doesn't mean the rest of the document is false. > woodruff: susan hennessey, your organization had a copy ofĭocument is true, it doesn't mean the rest of the document is true.
intelligence agencies have been trying to do that for years, and the fact that he has this much data about them does put it into question a little bit.
and secondly, the fact that a lot of this reporting is when the presidential administration in russia and the kremlin is a little bit worrying, because, i mean, that's essentially a hard nut to crack. there could be, you know, hundreds of pages of information on that person's access otheir suitability, on their personality. before we would put out a report like that, an intelligence report. we talks about his sources providing various information in the c.i.a. on the negative side it really is hard to make a distinction if we don't know who those sources are.
> woodruff: this is the former british intelligence officer. also, i think, the author had some credibility which is on the positive side. The positive side, for those who have lived and worked with the russians, it feels right. > woodruff: john sipher, your take? > i think the question is, is this real? there are things on the positive side and the negative side. clearly it passes some degree of preliminary credibility. but this is a matter that's- is not just simply a matter of fake news or something that we should disregard. that's different than saying that the intelligence community believes the allegations, or has substantiated them. that means that serious people are taking this seriously. the real story is the intelligence community thought it was appropriate to brief the president of the united states and the president-elect. they're obviously quite salacious in nature. so let's start, susan hennessey, but i just want to ask both of you in brief, what do you make of this report? > right, so for the moment, the real story is the allegations themselves are unverified. he's now at crosslead, a consulting firm. he was stationed in moscow in the 1990s and ran the c.i.a.'s russia program for three years.
0 kommentar(er)
